D500 Autofocus Performance

[DraganDL]

Well, in that case you've got to be surprised with Whyskeyman's experience too:
"Well, the D500 was almost always able to keep up with the very dynamic (motion) subject, while the D750 struggled", written by Whyskeyman.
Surely, I wouldn't reject a 750, if someone would give it to me as a present (or if it would've been a lottery prize etc.)Oz. Nikon is Nikon (in DX and FX categories). Now, although many of us know it is not the ONLY difference between DX and FX, many people are still misguided/carried away by the fact that FX is, obviously, equipped with larger photo cell (aka "sensor"). What they forget is that this difference means only that larger cell gives larger photos ("physically" in terms of the "amount of photons captured within"), so, it impacts the "technical quality" mainly when/if the photo is to be printed, and the print size is, say, 15'' x 20'' or more. Simply put, larger cell means more "room" for...enlargement.

​

 

[Needa]

I'm not at all surprised the D500 gives better auto focus results. It is considered a professional camera by Nikon, released 2 years after the 750 and has more cross type focus points. The 750 has a .8 dynamic range advantage out to about ISO 400 were the gap narrows.
Anyone tossing out a 750 I will gladly take it off your hands I'm sure it will blow away my 7100.

 

[Needa]

Now, although many of us know it is not the ONLY difference between DX and FX, many people are still misguided/carried away by the fact that FX is, obviously, equipped with larger photo cell (aka "sensor"). What they forget is that this difference means only that larger cell gives larger photos ("physically" in terms of the "amount of photons captured within"), so, it impacts the "technical quality" mainly when/if the photo is to be printed, and the print size is, say, 15'' x 20'' or more. Simply put, larger cell means more "room" for...enlargement.

​

I was under the impression that the larger photo cell allowing the sensor to collect more photons giving better low light performance all other things being equal and mega-pixels determined enlargement size and quality not bring printer into the equation.

 

[Woodyg3]

Well, in that case you've got to be surprised with Whyskeyman's experience too:
"Well, the D500 was almost always able to keep up with the very dynamic (motion) subject, while the D750 struggled", written by Whyskeyman.
Surely, I wouldn't reject a 750, if someone would give it to me as a present (or if it would've been a lottery prize etc.)Oz. Nikon is Nikon (in DX and FX categories). Now, although many of us know it is not the ONLY difference between DX and FX, many people are still misguided/carried away by the fact that FX is, obviously, equipped with larger photo cell (aka "sensor"). What they forget is that this difference means only that larger cell gives larger photos ("physically" in terms of the "amount of photons captured within"), so, it impacts the "technical quality" mainly when/if the photo is to be printed, and the print size is, say, 15'' x 20'' or more. Simply put, larger cell means more "room" for...enlargement.

​

I'm surprised to hear that someone with the D750 would say they are having "focusing problems", but certainly not that the D500 tracks focus better and quicker than the D750. I have never heard anyone claim that FX is better than DX for focusing speed or accuracy. I certainly agree, though, that people worry far too much about sensor size as opposed to camera features and capabilities. I can't tell you how many times people have told me they want to "upgrade" to an FX from a DX, as if sensor size by itself determines the camera's overall capabilities. I would never trade my D500 for any other Nikon for the wildlife and sports photography that I do, and I have no problems using it for landscapes that are blown up to 16x20 prints.

 

[DraganDL]

@Needa
Just to add a bit of explanation to that made by Woodyg3.
Dear Needa, suppose you're watching two photos, displayed side by side (or one above the other) on a 27'' HD (1080p) monitor. One of the photos is made by D500, the other is made by, say, D610. Both photos are displayed in the "windowed mode" (say, they seemingly have the "dimension" of a postcard). Both cameras used zoom lenses, the photographer took a great care to capture the same area of the particular object (let's suppose it's a portrait) with the same or almost the same settings (ISO value, shutter speed, jpg straight out of camera etc.). Of course, the photographer had to keep in mind the difference between ff and a cropped frame, etc. etc. Now, the point is this: you will not see much (if any) difference in "basic technical quality" (so to speak). However, the pixels will start "rearing their ugly heads" once you enlarge these photos to the certain size(s), but it will be even more obvious once the both are printed using the same printer, same paper/textile. Suffice to say, full frame will have the upper hand.
I hope I was clear enough (obviously, English is not my native language... but I adore English).

 

[Whiskeyman]

Well, in that case you've got to be surprised with Whyskeyman's experience too:
"Well, the D500 was almost always able to keep up with the very dynamic (motion) subject, while the D750 struggled", written by Whyskeyman.
Surely, I wouldn't reject a 750, if someone would give it to me as a present (or if it would've been a lottery prize etc.)Oz. Nikon is Nikon (in DX and FX categories). Now, although many of us know it is not the ONLY difference between DX and FX, many people are still misguided/carried away by the fact that FX is, obviously, equipped with larger photo cell (aka "sensor"). What they forget is that this difference means only that larger cell gives larger photos ("physically" in terms of the "amount of photons captured within"), so, it impacts the "technical quality" mainly when/if the photo is to be printed, and the print size is, say, 15'' x 20'' or more. Simply put, larger cell means more "room" for...enlargement.

​

Actually, greater enlargement capability would hold true only if the sensor pixel density went up also. The amount a photo can be printed to, all other things being equal, is a function of the sensor resolution. Theoretically, a DX format camera and FX format camera with the same number of photo receptors (megapixels) can print to the same resolution at the same size. Where the FX camera would win out should be in dynamic range and light sensitivity; i.e.; it should perform better in lower illumination conditions.

I'm not at all surprised the D500 gives better auto focus results. It is considered a professional camera by Nikon, released 2 years after the 750 and has more cross type focus points. The 750 has a .8 dynamic range advantage out to about ISO 400 were the gap narrows.
Anyone tossing out a 750 I will gladly take it off your hands I'm sure it will blow away my 7100.

Well, I started this by comparing my D500 AF with my D750 AF, and feel the D500 is the better of the two. But I'm not about to ditch my D750! (Unless I am buying a D850 or D780 in the future.)

WM